has even one mind ever been swayed by one of these type threads, i suspect not. but maybe we get to know each other a little better, which is a good thing i think.
Why Some Audiophiles Fear Measurements
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
has even one mind ever been swayed by one of these type threads, i suspect not. but maybe we get to know each other a little better, which is a good thing i think.
lol!
I'll never forget the first time I met my soon to be British audiobuddy back in the late '80s or so. He had a typical UK audiophile's system consisting of a Linn tt, Linn electronics and Linn Isobarik speakers. He came to visit me in the states at the time when I had Maggie 3As, cj electronics and vpi turntable. He had never heard anything like my system. He went back to London and I bought him a subscription to TAS; upon reading it, Terry's first comment was he had never heard of much of gear reviewed in TAS (I think some of the flat earth UK audio scene was because of the closed market combined with the definitely pro-Brit gear press). Readers Digest version: soon after Terry dumped his gear, bought a VPI and put an ET arm on it, bought the Maggies and if I remember correctly some Croft tube electronics. He was much happier!!!
As I read this, I continued to wonder about measurements supplied by manufacturers. In light of the 86 vs. 94 dB sensitivity (almost twice as loud at the same input!), do any of you have concern that the frequency of "inaccurate" measurements supplied with audio components is higher than we would hope?
Lee
Lee
Well in some instances, such in the case of dipoles or electrostatics, it's harder to define their efficiency.
Manufacturer-supplied specs are filtered through the same processing as their product sheets and should be taken with the same amount of skepticism. Shooting from the hip, extensive and technically-detailed specs tend to be more accurate than superficial ones. It latter requires little skill.
Here is a "documented" case where a reviewer raved about interconnects whose measurements were less than perfect.
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html
Review is a major factor in modern science. After a lifetime on both sides of it, I can confirm that it is human nature to go to the greatest lengths to avoid, discredit or eliminate negative reviews.
Jeff continues to hit the nail squarely on its head, yet no one seems humble enough to acknowledge the existence of this problem. In what way is a subjectivist Audiophile qualified to give an opinion about sound quality for anyone other than himself/herself? Where is there objective evidence that there is a correlation between what one Audiophile hears and another might/will hear? When the measurements show one thing, but the subjectivist Audiophile hears something else, why is that it is always the case that the measurements must be wrong or that the measurements don't tell the whole story? Where is the humility? Oh, it's always, "I've listened to hundreds, if not thousands, of systems in a variety of place" or some such other egotistical posturing.
Where is there evidence that one has undertaken any sort of training to correlate what one hears with the measurements? As previously noted by me and by Sean Olive, Harman will soon be offering for free software which will spoon feed people lessons in learning to detect various kinds of distortion, amongst other things. How many subjectivist Audiophiles here are going to take Harman up on this free offer? A show of hands, please. I'm guessing none, that's why they are golden ears.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Dear Kal: I think that many " problems/controversy " in manufacturer specs or magazynes measurements reside in which standars the specs have foundation: JIS, IEC, DIN,EIA,etc, etc. We all need to use and understand the same standards, like the RIAA one that unfortunately not all audiophiles understand it and its critical meaning.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Oh excuse me. Move over. I will bow down and lick the feet of great Sean Olive too.
Oh and spoon feed? How fxxxing condescending is that?
Oh, and what piece of audio equipment has Sean ever designed and commercially marketed? He's just a great marketing tool.
Actually, I'd be more than happy to use such a software package. I currently use and recommend Critical Listening for Audio Professionals by the late F. Alton Everest and Ear Training for the Contemporary Musician by Wyatt, Schroeder and Elliot, but neither fits the bill perfectly (Everest's book is closest, but half of it is devoted to elements that only really aid studio engineers). I also already use the EBU's SQAM files to help ascertain the nature and scale of audibility of a range of potential problems in audio (I don't mention this in print because to do so would contravene its non-commercial usage agreement). I welcome anything that can add to that arsenal.
Steve, I hardly consider you a subjectivist. To the contrary, knowing what I do about your room, gear, the process by which you make purchase decisions, and your intellect in fully comprehending the role that flavor choice has played in all of the things I just mentioned, you are far more of a rationalist than you give yourself credit for.
Ron is being extreme of course. Clearly someone with good hearing acuity can make observations that are useful, whether I hear the same or not. Many types of distortion have audible artifacts that can be heard by someone who knows what to listen for.
Myles that's not fair. Sean's day job is to provide quality assessments using objective and repeatable means for the designers at Harman. As such, he is just as much part of the R&D team as others actually figuring out what the next design should be. He also has a respected background at NRC where they spent a ton of time understanding what consumers liked and disliked in audio products. That his words help sell Harman product is a testament to good work that he does, not the other way around.
ya know, i think my problem is that i spend so much time actually listening to music and enjoying my Lps and RTR tapes, that i just don't give a rip about being qualified or any darn correlation.
maybe i should listen less and worry more.
naaah.
this thread is at 262+ posts and no talk of music in any context.
maybe someday i'll grow up and be an objectivist. it would be interesting to find out the hours listened per week of objectivists verses subjectivists. i'm not judging what is correct; everyone has their personal approach and there is no right or wrong. but some are more into 'sound' and others more into 'music'. some enjoy the subject of high end music reproduction as much as the experience.
i like to see myself as interested in both but i know when i don't listen much i'm not as happy.
i'm not trying to derail the thread, just stepping back for a bit of context.
to be fair; at the end of the day i want my system to sound as good as it possibly can. god knows i've committed as many resources as anyone in that direction. so the objective performance is very important to me.
excuse me for my rambling.
In getting a overview of "objectivists" from various boards, it seems that many of them are in technical fields and come to audio not because they are music lovers or even audiophiles per se, but because they think that audio is "easy" and they can prevail in technical arguments with fluffy audiophiles.
In this, they tend both overestimate their own knowledge and technical skills and underestimate the audio hobby.
The truly inspired technocrats are those who take measurements to the absolute limit of their usability and usefullness, and then abandon them to art, just like musicians do with their instruments.
In this, they tend both overestimate their own knowledge and technical skills and underestimate the audio hobby.
The truly inspired technocrats are those who take measurements to the absolute limit of their usability and usefullness, and then abandon them to art, just like musicians do with their instruments.
steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Personally I like Ron Party's suggestion that there might be three camps
1 subjectivist
2 objectivist
3. Rationalist
Thanks Ron
1 subjectivist
2 objectivist
3. Rationalist
Thanks Ron
Hardly extreme, Amir. Instead, honest. Hurtful? Maybe. Sometimes the truth hurts, though.
"Someone who knows what to listen for" is the key part of your post. This thread is about why Audiophiles fear measurements. I maintain Jeff is spot on. Audiophiles are in fear of measurements and, instead of learning what to listen for or, stated another way, instead of learning to correlate what they hear with what at least some of the measurements show, they disparage science and proclaim they elitist superiority. When offered a chance, in this case, for free, to actually learn something, they raise straw men arguments. "I'm always right", says the subjectivist, "and if the measurements don't correlate with what I'm hearing, then something is wrong with the measurements" or "measurements don't tell the whole story". At this stage of our evolution and the evolution of the audio world, one has to have blinders on to fail to recognize the absence of humility. But again, that's why they're golden ears.
Last edited:
